It's not (just) imitation/fashion/aesthetics. Shoving everything into a display allows manufacturers to:
* compress and de-risk production timelines because changes can be made in software instead of requiring retooling/replacing parts.
* reduce cost; the cost of a display is basically required by legislation requiring back-up cameras. Add in a few settings or map view and it has to be a touch screen. Consolidating everything else into a part you are already mandated to included reduces cost.
* meet customer reqirements; Except at the very bottom end of the market, customers expect cars to have space to display a map and be able to use music streaming services. Carplay/android auto also is a requirement for some users.
The GDPR (in art 32) only requires that "the controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk". I expect it's quite common for a company to get hacked even if they meet that level. I think the parent comment was imagining that any leak is automatically fined, regardless of whether the company had met some security requirement.
OK so now "Larry Ellison, a slaver nation, and a PE surveillance focused firm" can "can control American public opinion at the touch of a button"? That seems just as bad.
Having 3 separate companies own it means one of them can’t just decide tonight to call whoever’s in charge and tell them to change it, or else they’re fired and lose everything. I do actually assert that these three entities are going to have divergent interests. Also I get that you don’t like Saudi, and yup we all know MBS had that journalist killed (totally F’d up), but overall they’re still not a government hostile to the West — especially when compared to several neighboring countries.
The law [1] does not work as an magic all encompassing "ban". It says operating and distributing the app is is unlawful, and the consequence is a huge fine and the enforcement mechanism is suit from the US AG. Nothing says that a sale after doing something unlawful is illegal.
The bigger issue is that the Trump directed the AG not to enforce the law. So something is plainly illegal but is de-facto legal because of executive pronouncement. That is extremely worrying because one aspect of totalitarianism is that the dicta of the ruler has effect of law.
> Is that just being ignored while a deal is orchestrated
Yes. There is a series of executive orders (eg [1]) that literally say "To permit the contemplated divestiture to be completed, the Attorney General shall not take any action on behalf of the United States to enforce the Act ...". The "PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT" only allows the US AG to sue for enforcement, so this essentially is completely waiving enforcement.
This is why congress often gives independent agencies or private actors the right to sue in an act - because the DOJ cannot be trusted to fairly enforce laws if there is even the slightest political or economic valence to them.
what about ..the slightest political or economic valence to..
um..
the Attorney General?
or even worse..
what about ..the slightest political or economic valence.. to ..independent agencies or private actors.
That's, like, explicit corruption isn't it? We'll give this private actor or independent entity the exclusive right to be the defacto enforcer for whatever laws. (Laws they themselves probably asked, sorry "lobbied", for?)
If you can trust some ..independent.. entity, I'm sorry, that means you can make the cops independent in the same way and trust them to enforce that law. If it's impossible that the cops can be set up to be independent in a way that prevents corruption, then how is the ..independent.. entity set up that it prevents corruption?
I hadn't realized that was going on. That's insanity. Wow we're corrupt.
If there is a high-demand tourist location (like many parts of Spain) and tourists are more wealthy than locals (like many parts of Spain) then new housing stock will also be soaked up by AirBnBs. In this situation the "just build" argument means you have to build enough housing to house every single wealthy tourist that wants to come before you start seeing any relief to local housing issues. Not only does that mean locals have to wait thought, say, 10 years of construction before their issues are addressed, but in the mean time the tourism sector will have dominated the economy, which is not healty either.
The tourists do not have to be particularly wealthy. All they need is to afford a per-night/week fee that is a bit higher than average equivalent local long-term rent.
At 100€ per night, at 70% occupancy the equivalent monthly rent is ~2000€.
reply